Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cook4fun-mcp

cook4fun-mcp

by htunaa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Buy a coin

cook4fun_buy

Swap ETH for any cook4.fun coin by specifying its 0x address or $TICKER. Use slippage protection to secure your trade.

Instructions

Buy a cook4.fun coin by spending ETH. Reference the coin by 0x address or $TICKER. Slippage-protected.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "token": "<token>",
      "ethAmount": "<ethAmount>"
    },
    "name": "cook4fun_buy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesCoin address (0x…) or $TICKER
ethAmountYesETH to spend, e.g. "0.05"
slippageBpsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses slippage protection, a key behavioral trait, but omits details like whether the purchase is immediate, transaction result, or reversibility.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two front-loaded sentences convey the action and key details without redundancy. Could be slightly more structured but efficient overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a transaction tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the return value, gas implications, or failure conditions, which are critical for an AI agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds value by clarifying how to reference the token (0x address or $TICKER) and gives an example for ethAmount. However, the slippageBps parameter, though mentioned as slippage-protected, is not explicitly described, and schema coverage is 67%.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Buy' and resources 'cook4.fun coin' and 'ETH', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cook4fun_sell or cook4fun_launch.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for buying coins but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like cook4fun_claim or cook4fun_sell, nor does it mention prerequisites like having ETH.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools